Schelling falls for the implication shell game. Much of peer reviewed climate science looks at implications – If the antarctic ice sheet melts, then many cities would be inundated. The missing link is in establishing the hypotheses.

The threat of actual climate warming comes from projections by very sophistication computer programs. The goodness of fit of the models to the most recent 20 years of measurement is near zero. Until that can be worked out, mitigation measures are dubious.

The “Nobel” in economics is. itself, a fraud. It was established by the Bank of Sweden and is awarded every year to a prominent and well published economist, but there is no science in all this. The winner one year can have a theory that is diametrically the opposite of the theory proposed by another last year, e.g. a Milton Friedman free marketeer this year vs a Keynesian last year. There is little real science here, no progress toward a better understanding of economic behavior. They argue back and forth endlessly and agree on none of the basics or even what they should be measuring.
Ronald Havelock, Ph.D. (social psychology, not a true science, either, but I know all about scientific method and the statistical requirement for establishing evidential proof. Unlike his late great colleague, Julian Simon, Shelling is evidently ignorant of both.)